Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost (1 credit per call), the API-key distinction for free endpoints, update cadences, and the exact shape of returned signal objects. It stops short of stating whether get_trading_signals itself requires an API key or how errors/rate limits behave, and the mismatched '6 sources' count slightly undermines trust.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but mostly efficient: purpose, when-to-use, source descriptions, return format, precondition calls, and cost all earn their place. The formatting is a single dense paragraph rather than cleanly structured, and source details are duplicated between the description and schema, making it slightly less polished.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the return fields, source cadences, prerequisites, and cost. It also mentions operational ordering with risk and regime. Missing edge-case details like what happens when no signals exist or whether get_commodity_signals is the better choice for commodity-only needs leaves a small but real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable semantics beyond the enum labels: it explains update frequency, market-hours behavior, and the kind of content each source produces. It does not add much about omitting the parameter, though the schema already covers that, so a score above the 3 baseline is justified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the verb and resource ('Retrieve AI-generated trading signals') and lists output fields like direction, confidence, and reasoning. However, it claims '6 independent sources' but then lists exactly 5, creating confusion. It also does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_commodity_signals, which overlaps with the scr_daily commodity source.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use statement ('Use this tool when you need actionable trade ideas') and tells the agent to call get_risk_index and get_market_regime first. It does not mention when not to use the tool or how to choose get_commodity_signals instead, but the guidance present is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.